...Couples kissed, dancers circled with hoops and revelers took part in a mass yoga practice as part of the free-form celebrations.
Stonehenge was built in three phases between 3000 B.C. and 1600 B.C. and its purpose is remains under study. An icon of Britain, it remains one of its most popular tourist attractions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you ever have mystical urges? Since I learned of the pagan/Wiccan custom a few years ago, I've wanted to have a bonfire on the winter solstice. It seems fitting.
I once read an article in a British publication speculating that the drop in church attendance may account for the upswing in mysticism, punctuated by the wearing of crosses, rosaries, ankhs, yin and yang symbols, etc.
89 comments:
Disneyland for the enlightened.
I'm still a funky old Catholic.
Probably in any sense of the word I'm a mystic. That's the way my spirituality moves, I find renewal in nature, in contemplation, in prayer, in solitude, rising to the heights of soul when given space to find freedom with God's Spirit.
That I'm a Christian is really perfectly in tune with the historic faith. We talk about God's presence being with, in, through us, fruit of the Spirit expressed in love, joy, hope, peace, longsuffering. The Christian tradition is filled with visions and dreams and feats of devotion, miracles.
And in the quiet places, we speak of finding communion with the very maker of the whole universe, where one can retune and be renewed.
One theologian said this, “At the heart of the Christian faith is the almost unbelievable idea that the infinitely incomprehensible holy mystery of God does not remain forever remote but draws near in radical proximity to the world.”
The trouble with a lot of Western approaches to theology is that they became so entirely intellectualized they lost the mystic. A creeping deism added to this, argumentative proofs, alienating lingo.
Vladimir Lossky, in contrast, notes that the eastern approach to Christianity is inherently mystical, there's no separation between sphere's of experience like we have in the West. “Christianity is not a philosophical school for speculating about abstract concepts, but is essentially a communion with the living God.”
We do see this in some monastic movements, of course, and in some devotional writers.
"If you are a theologian, you will pray truly," said Evagrius. "And if you pray truly, you are a theologian."
Mystical theology is Christian, a deeper mysticism, a richer, a more profound that reaches into every particular and expands into the whole of the universe, the immanent transcendence of God leading humanity towards the experience of transcendent immanence in life.
And the original druids? Most became Christians. The evangelization of Britain and Ireland was missionary not military, meaning that St. Paddy and the rest showed a deeper power and mysticism. To have Ireland go from primarily pagan to primarily Christian within a lifetime is a profoundly mystical expression.
Stonehenge was built in three phases between 3000 B.C. and 1600 B.C...
Global warming cuts down construction time?
I once read an article in a British publication speculating that the drop in church attendance may account for the upswing in mysticism, punctuated by the wearing of crosses, rosaries, ankhs, yin and yang symbols, etc.
That would make sense. But the only way to increase church attendance would be to withdraw people's comfort with rational answers and the sciences that have promoted them. Hence, a War on Science is the only way to rescue a traditional, dogmatic religiosity.
To have Ireland go from primarily pagan to primarily Christian within a lifetime is a profoundly mystical expression.
I don't think so. If it was really a single lifetime then maybe so but then the British Isles were sparsely populated at the time and undergoing a withdrawal of support from the dying empire. But Christianity was a popular thing generally - perhaps by appealing to people's wishes for a nice afterlife in a world that was increasingly self-aware of how bleak its increasingly political, increasingly harsh and increasingly less cohesive and less tribal existence was.
Vladimir Lossky, in contrast, notes that the eastern approach to Christianity is inherently mystical, there's no separation between sphere's of experience like we have in the West.
Not only that, but I heard a bishop recently (John Spong?) explain that in the east, the crucifixion is given less importance, more importance was given to his life, and the "sinful" Adam and fall from grace less emphasized if it at all. They teach that he would have come on to the scene even if men weren't supposedly so inherently sinful. Perhaps there's a connection between that and that mysticism.
Here in greater Washington DC, it has been persistently cloudy on this longest day of the year. I don't know what that means for a pagan, wishing to worship the sun on the big day.
I don't know what that means for a pagan, wishing to worship the sun on the big day.
And, if you were honest, you'd admit that you don't care, either.
Light
Let there be light
I am the Light.
You are the light of the world.
Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light."*
To my mind, it doesn't get more mystical than that. Bonfires are but a glimmer, an acknowledgement of a power far greater, beyond what the visual eye can see even with the help of Hubble, or the human mind yet imagine.
On Christmas Eve, just past winter solstice, we light our home entirely with candle light, from nightfall until the tea lights gutter out. It's a mystical, memorable experience, celebrating the power and beauty of light in darkness.
*Gen 1:2, John 8:12, Matt 5:14, John 12:36
You do realize dancing around a bonfire at the Winter Solstice means dancing only with what God gave you on, right?
As for seeing or not seeing sunlight at the moment and recognizing the importance of the sun generally, I think this Colbert segment explains the folly of needing to see things physically as a precondition for recognizing their importance.
Mitchell and Webb Spirituality.
The Bad Vicar.
Pagans are too stupid to realize that clouds don't really exist. If they did, they'd disprove the theoretical existence of the sun itself!
"the crucifixion is given less importance, more importance was given to his life, and the "sinful" Adam and fall from grace less emphasized if it at all. They teach that he would have come on to the scene even if men weren't supposedly so inherently sinful."
The first part is true, the rest isn't quite. The priority is on his life, but not in a Western Spong/Liberal sort of way. God became man, so that man could become gods, as one early writer put it. Or, he became what we are so that we could become what he is.
The life of Jesus is not separated out its mystical, transformational reality. The goal of salvation is fullness of life, not just forgiveness of guilt, so the whole life and especially the resurrection come into play. The key term is "theosis." Which is the core element of mysticism, really. We participate with God even now, becoming in the present who we are to be in eternity.
Sin isn't a matter of guilt, it's a matter of incompleteness, of corruption. The problem is we die, and so the life of Jesus is the life that transcends that finitude, inviting us into that broader experience.
There was an old New Yorker cartoon with a middle-aged, affluent, well-dressed man in a tuxedo seated at a booth in a ritzy hotel restaurant or nightclub. Seated beside him is his female companion, a too-young, wide-eyed, perky and ditzy blonde wearing expensive attire and jewels.
He is sloppy drunk. Nearly passed out. Soon to be face down on the table.
The woman speaks: I can tell you're a mystic, Mr. O'Reilly. All Irishmen are mystics.
i love that mamatits is commenting.
the world is great!
tits
DC is pagan mecca, so if it's cloudy on the solstice, we be in trouble!!
Reminder: We rid ourselves of trolls by starving them.
Stonehenge was built in three phases between 3000 B.C. and 1600 B.C
It is strange to think that people added on to Stonehenge so long after it was originally built. Our instinct today is to say "that's historically significant -- don't mess with it!".
ST, Catholicism is chock full of mysticism, for which see the Desert Fathers.
Nick, I'm being good. I really am. :-))
Oh, and I know a vicar or two just like the one in rhhardin's comment :)
Actually, one of them is worse...a redefinition of mendacious in fact.
Wanna be Diocesan bureaucrats, not quite Bishops, not quite anything.
lol rh.
Dancing wasn't on the agenda, Ed :) More of a meditative retrospection of the previous year. Maybe the burning of old things related to bad memories, etc. A letting go in secular/spiritual/mystical anticipation of the Yuletide Season.
The big question is why there isn't a summer Christian holiday. Yule was basically a pagan celebration, with "Christmas" superimposed over it when suddenly paganism was no longer afterlife-y enough to support the social control aims needed under states, kings and lords, that weren't necessary under chieftains.
Good Wiccans dance, from what I'm told.
They were too busy farming, etc. They needed that Yule in the middle of a cold, depressing winter.
But I'm not Wiccan you naughty boy.
Now Edutcher is a "naughty boy"? That's almost as fun a moniker as "Mamatits'!
Ndspinelli, Titus has been jealous of my mamatits since he first started harrassing me about them back in the day when he was birthing and dropping loaves at Althouse.
Ignoring someone devoted to dropping loaves in the form of slyly abusive comments won't make them stop or go away. Much like a voyeur who finds stimulation in act of peeping and getting away with it rather than in the object being viewed, the satisfaction of dropping something stinky in a thread lies in the doing rather than in the recognition received.
When it comes to growth, nurture, acceptance, belonging, comfort and sometimes stimuation, there's little other than Light itself more powerful than a pair of mamatits. Which might account for a Hebrew reference to Shaddai.
The Hebrew word shaddai comes from the root word 'breast'. Literally translated it would mean 'many-breasted one'.
There are two roots for the word: first is to be powerful and second is breast or nourisher and sustainer. The O.T. uses this form 48 times. The word "Almighty" is translated from the Hebrew Shaddai, which, according to Hebraists, is a plural word.
Sounds like more of that wonderful all encompassing mysticism to me, courtesy of Titus.
Hi, Titus! That little creative part of you that glows under the poo is still loved by the Mamatits
More like "mountains", which could have been the same root word, as is the case when it comes to The Grand Tetons.
Yes, we are inherently mystics. We most certainly are. Our brains are wired for stories. We absolutely need stories. And when absent we make them. We seek connections. We make connections between things not necessarily connected constantly.
For you see, *strikes a professorial pose* this is made clear in the Smithsonian article "In the Shadow of the Castle" where a doctoral candidate is doing her thesis on medieval times. Living as women lived in the days of yore, she lived in a hut and most of her day was spent on mundane matters of survival such as fetching water.
Missing technology, her mind resorted to recalling songs and singing them all day. Recalling stories and telling them to herself, recalling television shows and reviewing them in her mind. She found herself making stories about herself living so close with nature. Fetching water, fetching water, fetching water, the drudgery was somewhat maddening, she surprised herself by making connections between what happens to her immediately and some unseen greater force that her scientific mind already knows does not exist. Was she allowing her egoistic scientific mind to supersede her direct experience with nature?
Then one day she was down by the river and a butterfly alit upon her shoulder and she was deeply moved by this being physically touched by nature itself. The butterfly lifted up off her shoulder and her heart sank and saddened at its leaving her then it set down on her other shoulder and she knew in her heart this tender grace is Nature itself knighting her and she burst into tears of raw human emotion right there at the river. Such is the mysticism inherent in human nature.
What!
Oh, you heard that story before?
Fine!
I notice the more our society declares its atheism the more television shows appear about ghosts, and searches for Sasquatch, odd monsters, and the like, including faux sciences such as Anthropomorphic Climate Change in replacement of traditional religions, changing its terms as it goes, working out its catechism right before our eyes. Just look at the first and second Cosmos series where the Ship of Imagination, a dandelion seed on the outside so closely resembles a temple on the inside, its view screen to the universe to closely resembling cathedral's stained glass windows, its control panel so near to a pulpit where its rejection of religion and new more modest replacement of pinched scientific tenets are spread out as all there is to be awestruck by, so blinded by the brilliance of its own science that nothing else beyond it is allowed, all expounded to rising crescendo of New Age music in place of hymnals appropriating from traditional religion the elements it seeks to replace, such arrogance and without a trace of self-aware irony. Yes, humans are innately mystic.
You will notice when you study closely the teaching of Jesus, he did not go around telling his followers, "Your beliefs are entirely wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong." No. He showed them a better approach. He did not attempt to destroy and belittle their beliefs, rather, he used what was there already and built upon that. He did have it out for the priesthood who he saw as corrupted and overburdening people with unnecessary laws for the priesthood's own advantage. He taught religion is immediately accessible without them. That all people, jew and gentile, free and slave, rich and poor, are children of God and do not require the (corrupted) priesthood for access to the Father. He is deeply mystical person and taught its immediacy of religion for all people.
That's my story and I'm sticky wicket.
Thanks, Chip, beautifully said...all of it except sticky wicket, which is intriguing, but not apropos ~wink~
...including faux sciences such as Anthropomorphic Climate Change in replacement of traditional religions
Can you explain the "real" science of climate? What's the "real" explanation for the way the climate is at the equator, the poles and in between, in such a way as to prevent lows of -273 C or highs of greater than 150 F? I'm dying to hear what this scientific explanation on the part of the denialists is for what keeps climate patterns as stable as they are relative to what's observed on other planets. What's in earth's secret sauce, homey?
The hippies will probably hold a wild pagan dance around a huge bonfire up in the Magic Meadow tonight.
An old Woodstock tradition.
@Ritmo,
Can you explain "hippies?"
The important stuff first.
Just look at the first and second Cosmos series where the Ship of Imagination, a dandelion seed on the outside so closely resembles a temple on the inside, its view screen to the universe to closely resembling cathedral's stained glass windows, its control panel so near to a pulpit where its rejection of religion and new more modest replacement of pinched scientific tenets are spread out as all there is to be awestruck by, so blinded by the brilliance of its own science that nothing else beyond it is allowed, all expounded to rising crescendo of New Age music in place of hymnals appropriating from traditional religion the elements it seeks to replace, such arrogance and without a trace of self-aware irony. Yes, humans are innately mystic.
Palin forbid that humans use wonder as a source of inspiration for finding rational explanations to the natural phenomena we observe, rather than relegate that wonder solely to mystical (and usually wholly, insufferably inadequate) traditional religious ideas.
Does anyone here understand the difference between rationalism and rationalization? Does anyone get that religion/spirituality is primarily an emotional phenomenon, and in no way prepared to offer serious, workable, repeatable explanations that can actually invent the technology necessary for prolonging life, sending rockets into space, or communicating with dunderheads all over the world?
I think you're too violent and intemperate a guy to understand hippies, ST. No offense, but you sort of lack the mindset to appreciate that violence, technology, power and the artificiality of modern life all have their limitations in terms of what they can satisfy in a natural human.
So, you recommend that I kill hippies, so as to unleash all that violence and intemperation?
You think I'm kidding about the Magic Meadow?
And, "no offense," but I think that's sloppy poop dripping out your hind end.
What Chip says has merit, but it is pretty fascinating that when faced with the science/religion conundrum, a bunch of people are tempted to merge that split shaman back into another shaman. The old shaman was priest and doctor all in one. And then some curious fellows found that there were explanations for disease and suffering that we could answer without doing silly dances and offering magical incantations. The priests took over the leftover stuff, and now often feel shortchanged by that bargain. We should be able to seem that useful, too, they exclaim!
Sure, Tyson can appeal to wonder in inspiring others to appreciate what rational explanations have revealed about the universe, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's an innocent use of aesthetic.
But he doesn't appreciate, apparently, that some people are offended by aesthetic appeals to wonder in such a way. Wonder can only be used to reinforce our limitations, sanctioned by tradition and emotion-only spirituality, and never to praise what it's actually brought us to "accomplish" as a civilization!
Somewhere in the middle of that long spray of dung, Ritmo, I think I found a thesis.
I admit it. You fucking lost me.
What was that all about?
So, you recommend that I kill hippies, so as to unleash all that violence and interoperation?
Sounds like someone's missing the point/changing the subject again. Which is to be expected.
Although the silver lining is that if you did that, perhaps it would bring you into a setting more appropriate and natural for someone of your ilk: The criminal justice system. If traditional religion isn't confining you enough, think of how comforting four 6-foot walls and a room-mate named "Bubba" would be!
And, "no offense," but I think that's sloppy poop dripping out your hind end.
Ah, the higher thoughts of a moron. So enlightening.
I really don't hate you as much as you need me to in order for you to feel complete, Thomas.
I feel complete, now, Ritmo! My spiritual journey has now ended, due to this epiphany.
I admit it. You fucking lost me.
No admission necessary. You were lost all along.
You were always lost. That's why you need simple answers.
Ask the guys in the funny costumes and the black-white moralizing short platitudes for guidance.
You won't get it anywhere else. And you found a tribe that loves you for your admitted inadequacies anyway.
Pestering me just reveals your need to blame others for that inadequacy.
Jesus loves you, Thomas. So you can leave everyone else alone now.
Gotta go play with The Dawgz.
I'm riled up and ready to bite somebody!
Anything for you to avoid your rabies shot.
My inadequacy is very comfortable, Ritmo.
Poor Ritmo-a been a-pestered!
Mama Mia!
I'm gonna go play with the Dawgz, kid. You want me to give the pack a message?
No.
But if I did I'd tell them to pester you for that rabies shot you so sorely deserve.
Enjoy your jams.
...violence, technology, power and the artificiality of modern life all have their limitations in terms of what they can satisfy in a natural human.
Well said.
Thanks -
Can you explain how a political party and its adherents declaim over and over and over and over and over X a billion ad nauseam that their focused target of attention politicizes science by disallowing new strains of stem cell research derived from aborted fetuses while allowing research to continue on present strains, in order to avoid the real hazard of killing unborn babies for the purpose of producing new strains while it is shown that advances in pluripotent stem cells have been derived from adult cells and not fetal cells? And as soon as they have the chance, a chance not present but a chance created, they seize upon climate, the change of climate we are all taught from gradeschool that changes, that being the nature of climate, fern fossils on Antarctica and the like, politicized to its fullest extent possible. Religiously. Faithfully. These followers cannot handle debates, they ditch them continuously because they cannot face their opponents in real debate. I don't have to explain anything about temperature at the equator to know when I'm being bullshitted to grab power and money to individuals and government when I see government departments falling all over themselves shoving this shit down our throats, showing the same fucking movie three times to students drilling into there tender heads an existential threat that does not exist while they position themselves at the intersection of the flow of huge flows of money streams they establish themselves by false economies. Constantly amassing more power to themselves and taking power and money from citizens in scores of ways, driving up cost of absolutely everything. Politicizing everything right to the air that we breath to the farts of cattle in contradistinction to our own scientific training regarding the circle of life, and nature of change, the movement of tectonic plates, Eath's relationship to the sun. And specifically CHANGE
Stop demanding I be a top scientist conversant on specifics in order to rebut puppet scientists reliant on government grants for their own careers. Whose emails and their own political activities discredit science itself. You're deflecting again off the subject of politicians as scientists, propagandists as scientists who cannot even produce their notes, whose experiments cannot be reproduced and checked, who forgo the very basics of science to propound their new found religion.
Dazzle us with your discoveries, go on, but we will not be so dazed as to write God out of the picture. And while I'm on it the clockmaker analogy is good rhetoric but it unfortunately places yourself at the tippy topmost position in the universe of discoveries, and you're flatly too stupid to hold it. I prefer the wonder of not knowing whatever it is beyond your discoveries, allowing for theories that crash all that is known, however brilliantly found and deduced.
tl;dr you're not all that.
The party politicizing science is the one with the weirdness to claim that 3 out of every 100 scientists are right and 97 are unquestionably wrong.
But it was nice to hear you ramble on with however many run-on sentences to say as much.
You must be a really small person to personalize objective facts into a contest of "YOU" versus "WHOMEVER BELIEVES THEM".
Ladies and Gentleman: Science Non-Teacher Chip McHoy. He'll stand up there and tell you everything he doesn't know and can't explain - while demanding that you agree with his non-knowledge. Because otherwise, you're a dupe. But he sure can say, with absolute certainty, that anyone who does know anything more than him is WRONG. Because, knowing more than him makes one arrogant, and that's mean. Nice non-knowledge is better than mean knowledge. It's nicer, quainter, more humble, and this is what makes it correct.
Other than that, love your emotionalism and imagery regarding "shit" and throats. Of course, you still didn't explain anything about what was asked. But then again, you reject the supposed arrogance of asking that you actually know what you're talking about. How arrogant for others to ask you to provide evidence for what you say! How mean! I'll get even with you, facts! I'll get you someday, science! I raise my fist and will make you obey!
Here's to the hope that you'll one day grow up, Chip. It's hard but totally worth it.
So Chip, are you saying that because we breathe it or cows fart it, it's wrong for science to study it?
It really sounds like you're saying that you feel that if it's too personal to you, then HANDS OFF, SCIENCE! Which would be an interesting directive to give to the endeavor.
Inmate mysticism? What's that?
Science is wrong because it infringes upon Chip's right to feel mystified by what he preferred we didn't know - and therefore couldn't ask public servants to act upon.
Lol. It's a bunch of twenty-to-lifers with a ouija board and a long night ahead of them.
Never mind...
Stop demanding I be a top scientist conversant on specifics in order to rebut puppet scientists reliant on government grants for their own careers.
Actually Chip, most scientists are happy to take funding from just about anyone who will provide it - government by no means excepted. Many discoveries you use in your life every day were hatched in gov't labs or with gov't funding; it's actually not uncommon at all. But if you were a more astute conspiratorialist you would have already known that, right?
Inmate mysticism...yeah, you don't want to know :)
I've just read and re-read a whole lot of dialog and monologue about "climate science" and have yet to see one link to one study, let along anything near 97 out of 100.
I don't give a shit. I really do not. I'll listen when I see several links to concrete peer reviewed studies that have been replicated.
And golfers stop polluting our creeks and rivers with their nasty run offs.
Oh wait....
All the rest of this is blarney.
Lol. Don't worry about what you can't be bothered about, Ari. A lack of interest is the most obvious admission of a self-fulfilling prophecy for not finding something.
R & B .... I suspect I've spent more time in the wilderness, directly witnessing climate shifts over the past 65 years, than most persons here and definitely more than the average academic...with exceptions for those who actually go in to the wilderness and live there for their study...such as Prof L David Mech.
BTW...I said I wasn't interested UNTIL I saw some some links for concrete peer reviewed studies than were replicated...its your argument, produce the links or just continue with the gas. I thought you were better than HuffPo.
Until I see validated evidence, not just vaunted opinion, I won't give a damn.
Growing up I often wondered how it was that good people of Weimar Republic could accept the likes of Nazis and now just looking at the faithful, faithful I said, among the present Democratic party, truly a few form of religion and mysticism, and all my questions about that are answered. Of course they answer in the opposite. A glance at Facebook comments confirms, now everywhere due to Facebook's comment code made available to websites.
I don't read those studies directly - I read the compiled facts in encyclopedias and trust that as easily as I would trust an encyclopedia article on the temperature of the surface of Mercury or the distance of the galaxy. And so can you. You don't need me or anyone else to do that and if you fancy yourself some type of originalist who NEEDS an original paper, you might try to see what GOOGLE can do for you. That's sort of how knowledge works these days, in a knowledge economy, Ari.
Being out in the woods is a great thing. If all that time in the woods was in the Alaskan tundra, you might have noticed some drastic changes over the years that the locals have picked up on, also. As the science predicts and is heavily important to pick up on. But the big picture here is not to pick a bunch of other places or one single, arbitrary place in a temperate environment - because, again, being provincial about it and saying the data isn't observable "by you" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, that goes back to our trust that scientists aren't deceiving us by explaining that the earth's rotation "hides" the sun from our view at night - and not that the orb was somehow destroyed for yet another 8 hours. (Although depending on how cloudy the day was, Father Martin Fox might disagree).
Oh, there you go, Chippie. A mature, reasoned response in the form of Godwining the thread. Truly a wise reaction and not in any way the desperate pushback of a kid. Yup, those Democrats - rounding up Jews and other undesirables, building death camps - (so unlike and less humane than the Republican social "solution" of mass incarceration of non-violent offenders), giving Roman fascist salutes and putting skulls and crossbones on the obligatory helmets. And the taking over of other countries in vengeance-based wars of choice for our own racial colonization efforts. Let's not forget that, either.
Here's hope that you might someday read a non-fiction book. And enjoy and learn something from it. Or maybe even a National Geographic, if it's not too Nazi and statist for you.
Chippie???
Because tagging someone as "Chippie" consitutes "a mature reasoned response...a truly wise reaction and not in any way the desperate pushback of a kid"
Yup, it has to be that.
Thanks for a posting the question on innate mysticism, deborah. I enjoyed thinking about it while I finished up the yard work, especially appreciating the contributions of Paddy O, to the thread along with Chip A's observations.
You're lecturing me on the adult way to address a man who named his internet avatar after a factory-produced brand of chocolate chip cookie.
Hardly a lecture, when the very words of man who once named himself an Urban Legend are used. Unless, of course he had a proclivity for lecturing.
Oh no! "Urban Legend". Sense of humor, much?
So you didn't want to lecture, but simply to hector? Either way, you might have actually educated me on something.
Hector: talk to (someone) in a bullying way.
Those words were your words, R&B. If you thought they involved hectoring or lacked educational value, so be it.
R & B .... You are the one making the assertions, not me. My old fashioned methods suggest that given that you pose the hypothesis, then you should present the evidence. And that evidence should be peer reviewed and repeatable. Just suggesting that I "Google" up some studies is a dodge, but if that's all you got, okay by me.
Google will be rife with "studies" by some Professor Tiddly Dink at Omigosh College that are really just papers (hypotensises) and to lend a taint of validity to it, he will solicit and acquire the supporting "paper" by some Professor Hey You at some outer region of academia, based upon his/her sending two sophomores to north of 60 for a weekend to look at some ice or lack of ice. Nowhere in these "studies" will there one ounce of valid chemical or physical research evidence of a time line longer than the next tenure cycle.
In the respect I cite above, yes, this "science" is indeed mystical. It's like a colony of merkats all crowded together chattering agreement that something is happening.
R & B ....interesting concept you have there. That I should just believe experts, like maybe some of those long ago who argued the earth was flat, whatever.
No, I'd like to see some research that at least reflects in some tiny way my empirical observations from deserts to arctic zones. Some tiny bit of evidence that the climate changes we all notice, sans degrees in navel gazing, are significantly anthropomorphic. Given that it might be, some shred of evidence that some how off-shoring our pollution production will somehow improve the global environment.
I'm the last guy to say if I didn't see it it did not happen. But, I am the first guy who looks for empirical validation of what I do observe. Just agreeing on the cause of a phenomena with someone else doesn't cut it for me...e.g., I can be wrong, and so can you.
BTW... I haven't read "fiction" since Rudyard Kipling, et al, in my youth, with an occasional submission to mind bending tedium such as Sienkiewicz's Trilogy. Unless, of course, you include the various editions of the Bible and Torah as fiction. I'm not much of bible student these days, but was at one time in my atheistic (I thought) youth. I found differences of opinion on translations, such as "kill" versus "murder," and so forth...germane to me at the time due a little war I got drawn in to by enlistment. Trust me, your interpretation of those words depend a whole lot on the perspective from which you view them empirically.
I read almost exclusively non-fiction, biographies, and documented studies and opinion pieces.
I think that's the whole problem with what you expect of science, though. It obviously is often quite complicated, and new data can always emerge when a new aspect of what we study comes to light. That's what we expect, in fact - as sealing the door means no more science. It is therefore a "provisional" form of knowledge, subject to and expecting of constant revision, even though we hope and usually see that these are typically in the form of finer and finer refinements rather than through wholesale makeovers.
But that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful. It's still the best form of knowledge about natural phenomena (and increasingly, personal and psychological phenomena) that we have, and that is why I'm generally satisfied to use it as a basis for deciding policy than if we were to arbitrarily discard it as not mattering simply when the issue is tough and involving.
MamaM: It was late last night and I apologize if my use of the term "hector" was heavy-handed. Something that rhymed with "lecture" came to mind and I realize now you were really just nit-picking a bit more than bullying per se - which is obviously a much tinier offense. Sorry also if you thought I was being mean to Chip or hypocritical in my response to him.
R & B ...I can't tell if you direct any of that latest comment toward me. But, if you did, how in the world did you conclude I favor sealing doors or ignoring science per se. I never said anything close to that. At the closest I said sheer acceptance of a hypothesis by dint of political demagoguery was nonsense.
In my prior field of work I was involved with examination of the earth materials and flora & fauna of wetlands and I am aware of how it has changed over time. Not just because I noticed something different, but because we noticed something different and took samples to analyze physically and chemically. Those analysis can be read for techniques and methods and results. Al Gore, or anyone else just rhetorically expounding, saying something is so because he says it is doesn't carry the water in my way of thinking.
Never mind what I asked, originally, as I am convinced you will not or can not answer.
Well, I don't think I can give an answer that will satisfy you, anyway. But I can usually answer.
MamaM: It was late last night and I apologize if my use of the term "hector" was heavy-handed. Something that rhymed with "lecture" came to mind and I realize now you were really just nit-picking a bit more than bullying per se - which is obviously a much tinier offense. Sorry also if you thought I was being mean to Chip or hypocritical in my response to him.
What a lovely convolution! Nicely done, Rhythm and Balls, but deceptive, and a showcase example of minimizing.
For those looking to be "educated" on something minimization is a trivializing behavior used as a manipulation tactic.
There's no psychological give-away there rivaling your paranoia, but then, if you were less paranoid, where would the media companies and politicians catering to it be? And where would the self-righteous, anti-apology wing of the Republican party be if it could take others' apologies genuinely?
Get a grip. Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe, Sigmund. I'm really not sure how far you think you can go on the psycho-babble circuit, but if you're open to exposing your own anti-social neuroses, then go ahead. Lay it on me.
Or just go find something useful to do, finally.
Given the older Dr. Phil's novel ideas, will he put forward a diagnosis for "maximization"? That would be cool. I think it would be about inflating the supposed sins of others, to give MamaM greater control over her desired ability to arbitrarily shame, thereby distracting and getting her way after losing an argument.
Make sure to get the APA and DSM cracking on it, Mama Freud. Which, BTW, brings into question your curious name. "MamaM"? Obviously there's got to be a psychodynamic component at work with that one. Care to share?
Or just go find something useful to do, finally.
In my book, inviting someone to expose themselves, with name calling gibberish as the result, seems more useful than thirty-one long winded attempts at self expression on a single thread.
You're just being an argumentative ninny.
Gibberish? "Minimization"?
If Dr. Phil has taught the world anything, it's that you don't trust a supposed psycho-babbler from Texas.
And as always, the responsibility for remaining focused when oh-so-dreadfully long tracts of text rear their discombobulating head, lies with you. But since when have you ever taken responsibility for anything?
Go ask the rancher-counselor for the implications of that. Psychologically speaking, what do we call people who resent the idea of taking responsibility for anything?
Besides "MamaM"?
Psychologically speaking, what do we call people who resent the idea of taking responsibility for anything?
Besides "MamaM"?
Montana Urban Legend?
Brazillero?
Republicans for better Dentistry?
Ritmo?
Rhythm and Balls?
I may have missed a few or have the spelling incorrect, but the general idea is there. When someone of your intelligence uses that gift to demean others through name calling and deceitful manipulation, I don't see them as responsible or respectful of others or the gift they possess.
I will concede that Argumentative Ninny is up a step on the label ladder from Chippie and "naughty boy", but not near as High and Mighty as Mamatits.
When the day comes that you lose the Rhythm if not the Balls, IBAN for Intelligent But Argumentative Ninny might be name to consider.
At first I was going to respond to your nags by noting that at least they gave you a way of inserting yourself into a conversation that you otherwise couldn't have contributed to, but jokes aside, it's pretty sad that you lack the capacity to believe others. Maybe it's a face-saving measure, whereby having borne the false witness of repeatedly declaring someone deceitful (and worse) you persist in insisting that's the case - but it really does sound like a more distrustful thing than anything else. No one can make you believe them, but if someone is a generally distrustful person, then it doesn't seem like there's much to be done.
I suppose my mind gets busy enough to deceive even me at times, but that doesn't get in the way of valuing sincerity. In any event, thanks for the creative listing of names past and future.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Well, I don't think I can give an answer that will satisfy you, anyway. But I can usually answer.
Oh, you could, R & B, but you just wont' go to the trouble. Too bad, I'd be a willing reader and listener. It may be that you have adopted the "faith" of anthropomorphic climate change and really don't know, but I suspect someone who has experience in molecular biology really could if they would. I mentioned the wetlands study stuff for a reason...a failed attempt to peak your interest.
I could go in to my experiences with wolves and my study of them per se, but it'd be boring. They just do not live up to the popular politically correct imaginary concept of them. About 80% of any given population is convinced on wolf myths, all 95% false on average. The "innate mysticism" rules the observation and one does not see.
And where they are problematic, why yes, that problem is anthropomorphic in origin with the exception for boundary zones where any apex predator has to be kept at bay more or less along the boundary. And I can cite empirical studies bearing that out. I already named a foremost empirical research expert, Prof L David Mech.
It works well if you do not try to "settle" all the territory in wilderness where the predators exist...they are entitled to some space, just as we are. YMMV...
Too bad we couldn't actually have revealed things to each other. It is both of our loss.
Just as you are, for my part, I am done with it.
Ritmo, believe it or not, I've thought, numerous times about my dismissal and declaration, of you, as just being an asshole.
Too harsh on my part, not thoughtful on my part, dismissive of alternative viewpoints on my part.
But when push comes to shove, you're really a lightweight. Only able to disgorge what you been taught (by whatever means) to disgorge.
As I said before, your world as envisioned by you, is no world I would want to live in.
Too bad it's the real world. But given your interest in X-Rays and assholes it's no surprise that you block out so much from your own sight!
Post a Comment